Wow, so much ignorance in this video. Y’all probably know the problems with these arguments, but I think I’m gonna eat some of this low-hanging fruit and spell it out for those few who think the video makes remotely decent arguments:
1. “There is nothing in human experience that let’s us create something from nothing.”
A) Why limit yourself to human experience? Surely everyone can agree that lots of things happen that are outside our experience, like quantum effects, or time dilation, yet we know these things happen.
B) Which brings us to an uncomfortable fact: We know, scientifically, that there are particles which do spring into and out of existence! : Virtual particles (x)
C) And how exactly is god allowed to be an exception to this rule? **cough**cough** Special Pleading **cough**cough**
2. Paley’s Watch-In-The-Desert Argument
A) The main problem with Paley’s argument is, as Dawkins points, that watches (or phones) don’t mutate and reproduce. Evolution doesn’t argue the spontaneous creation of things like lions or or seagulls - they evolved. It takes millions of years for the process to produce dramatic results. Comparing it to an inanimate object is like comparing apples and rocks.
B) As Hume pointed out, we have experience with watch-making (or phone making). We know how phones are made. We know what it requires. We have experience with it and so know where not to expect to find them and we’re skeptical of processes producing it which are contrary to our experience. In contrast, Hume argued (and remember, he lived before Darwin), that we don’t have experience with whatever process produces the variety of living things on earth, so how can one say what they should or should not expect?
Put another way, my neighbor has an artificial waterfall in their yard, but I would be completely mistaken if I then concluded that all waterfalls in the world were constructed the same way - that is, by human intervention. So one can’t compare processes for things we know with those we don’t. It’s like comparing apples and aliens.
C) Lastly, as wonderfully basic as that old philosophical argument is, the fact is that we know for a fact that animals have evolved over time. Horses used to be 3 feet tall with 3 toes; now they’re 6 feet tall with one toe. There are bacteria which can digest synthetic materials which humans invented in the last century. We have fossil evidence, genetic evidence, anatomical evidence, etc etc. What do creationists have? Poor philosophy and an old book.
3. Earth is so perfect! “Everything we know about earth suggests it was designed to sustain life.”
Really? How about the fact that the vast majority of plants and animals can only use the outer crust of the earth as a home? How about the fact that 99% of species that ever existed have died? How about the mass die-offs that have occurred on the planet? How about the ice ages? How about epidemics? And tsunamis? And earthquakes? How about nature being ‘red in tooth and claw’ - that is, a savage struggle to survive. How about the fact that even on the surface of earth, much of the planet is extremely harsh: super hot deserts, freezing cold arctic, etc And that’s the earth we have now! The earth, for instance, used to have a different atmosphere. It used to be bombarded with lethal rays from the sun till things like the ozone layer developed.
In short, the earth sustains life, but I think it’s clear that only a biased judge would conclude that it was “designed to sustain life”.
4. The earth orbits the sun so perfectly!
A) Throughout the universe we find planets and stars which orbit each-other. The earth is not unique in that regard. at all.
And if the earth fell out of orbit, we’d just be one of many planets and stars which have done the same.
B) If earth wasn’t capable of supporting life (e.g. flew out of orbit or into the sun - and btw, we are slowly moving closer toward the sun), then we’d just not be here to talk about it.
In other words, it’s like someone arguing that they have a truly perfect race car bc it’s never been in an accident. “This car wants me to live! This race-car will simply not get into an accident! Look at me, I’ve been driving it for years and I’m still alive!” That argument is great unless or until that person gets into an accident and dies. Then the argument no longer works - but the person isn’t here to see his mistake. It’s only bc he hasn’t died, that he can reach this faulty conclusion. That is, it’s only perfect till it’s not. Same with earth: If it didn’t support life, we wouldn’t be here to say, “wow, it supports life.” But the mere fact that it does support life - for now, most of the time - doesn’t imply that it was designed for life anymore than a planet which fell out of orbit was “designed not to have life!”
C) That bit about the moon and the eclipse - lol, yeah, that’s some critical thinking right there. “The moon looks about the same size as the sun. Clearly god did that! For what reason - who the hell knows?! - but it’s so interesting it must be god!” lol
5. “We’ve got such a super balance of gases in our atmosphere!”
A) Yeah, except when we didn’t. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Evolution_of_Earth.27s_atmosphere
B) Much of the changes in the atmosphere were done by us and other living things. The earth is a giant ecosystem which evolves along with the living elements. The earth evolved an atmosphere which suits us (at least, at most places on the surface) just as much as we evolved to use that precise atmosphere.
If we lived near a hydrothermal vent, we’d be saying how great it is that our atmosphere is freezing, super dense salt-water with rushes of boiling sulfur oozing into it. “Clearly this was designed for us!” Orrrrrrr… we’d be like the many forms of life which evolved to live there.
6.) “It’s very soothing and comforting believing [in god]”
That could be the case (or could not be), but is still not a good reason to believe in anything. I might wish spider-man was patrolling the streets of NY, but that doesn’t make it so.
7. ‘The design we see makes for conclusive proof in god.’
A) I don’t see conclusive proof of design. At all.
B) Even if we did - which we don’t - that’s not conclusive proof for god. We could just as well imagine any extraordinary or supernatural explanation: Maybe aliens designed earth (or even our universe)? Maybe we’re living in the matrix? Could be anything. There’s no demonstration of how the alleged proof of design is proof of god. It’s just another one of those “therefore god” faux-arguments.
8. “So who is god? We know from his final revelation…”
I’m gonna quote bluejewofzsouchmuhn here:
"God’s final revelation." —Muslims
"God’s new and improved testament." —Christians
"God’s original, no-bullshit, straight-up truth." —Jews
"Some stuff those other guys forgot to tell you about god." —Mormons
"Wait, you can’t leave me out of this." —Sun Myung Moon
"You’re all so confused. Here, let me help." —L. Ron Hubbard
Etc. etc. etc.